Appeal 2007-3283
Application 10/271,594
Kimura et al disclose correcting a voltage determined from
gradation data of each pixel of the one pixel group, on the basis of a
result of the computing operation, to obtain corrected voltage and
applying the corrected voltage between a pair of electrodes of each
pixel of the one of the pixel groups during the predetermined
horizontal period in order to reduce non-uniformity of a display in col.
3, lines 44-53, col. 4, lines 17-27, col. 10, lines 15-50, and col. 13,
lines 55-65
(Answer 3).
In Kimura, the Abstract, column 3, lines 44 to 53, column 4, lines 17
to 27, column 5, lines 14 to 20, column 13, lines 55 to 65, and column 15,
lines 31 to 56 all support the Appellants’ position that the correction voltage
in Kimura is applied to the switching element of a pixel after the need for the
correction has occurred (i.e., after the switching element has been turned
off). Kimura specifically states that the correction is made “irrespective of
the horizontal scanning period” (col. 15, ll. 55 and 56). Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 10 is reversed because the
Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection does not possess a rational
underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988, (Fed. Cir. 2006). The obviousness rejection of claims 8 and 9
is reversed because the teachings of Tamai do not cure the noted
shortcomings in the teachings of Kimura.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013